CDS (I) 2022 General Knowledge · Question 91 of 120

Correct — B, joint sitting can be resorted to for passing a Bill amending the Constitution of India. The stem asks for the statement that is NOT correct, and this is it. Article 368(2) requires an amendment Bill to be passed in each House separately, by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting. The joint-sitting device belongs to Article 108, which applies to ordinary Bills that the two Houses cannot agree on; there is no provision for a joint sitting where the two Houses disagree over a constitutional amendment. The practical consequence is large. If the Rajya Sabha declines an amendment Bill, the Bill simply fails — the Lok Sabha's numbers cannot be pooled with the Council of States to push it through, and the Council therefore holds a real veto over amendments that it does not hold over ordinary legislation.

• (a)It is governed by Article 368(2) of the Constitution of India. — This one is correct, so it cannot be the answer. Article 368 sits in Part XX of the Constitution and clause (2) is precisely the clause that lays down how an amendment Bill is introduced, what majority it needs in each House, and when State ratification is required before the President's assent.
• (c)The State Legislatures cannot initiate any Bill or proposal for amendment of the Constitution of India. — Also correct. Article 368(2) opens by saying an amendment may be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament. A State Legislature has no power to initiate one; its role, for the entrenched subjects in the proviso, is only to ratify after Parliament has passed the Bill.
• (d)The previous sanction of the President of India is not required for introducing any Bill in the Parliament for amendment of the Constitution of India. — Correct as well, and it is the statement students most often doubt. No prior recommendation or sanction of the President is needed to introduce an amendment Bill — that requirement attaches to Money Bills and to Bills under Articles 3 and 117, not to Article 368. The President enters only at the end, and since the 24th Amendment of 1971 the assent is obligatory.

Article 368 lays down India's amending procedure. A Bill is introduced in either House, passed in each House separately by a special majority — over half the total membership of that House and at least two-thirds of those present and voting — and then goes to the President, who must give assent. For a defined list of federal subjects in the proviso to Article 368(2), such as the election of the President, the distribution of legislative powers or the Seventh Schedule, at least half the State Legislatures must also ratify the Bill before assent.

Four statements, three of which are the plain text of Article 368(2) restated, and one imported from a different article. The way to crack it quickly is to remember what a joint sitting is for. Article 108 exists to break a deadlock over an ordinary Bill, and it decides by a simple majority of members present and voting in the combined House — a standard that would defeat the whole purpose of a special majority for an amendment. So the two ideas cannot live together, and option (b) is the intruder. Joint sittings in India have in fact only ever been summoned for ordinary legislation, never for an amendment. Worth adding that this rule is why the Rajya Sabha's arithmetic matters so much whenever a government proposes to amend the Constitution: it cannot be bypassed.

• Article 368(2): an amendment may be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament.
• Each House must pass it by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting.
• There is no provision for a joint sitting to resolve a disagreement between the two Houses over a Constitution amendment Bill; Article 108's joint sitting is confined to ordinary Bills.
• No prior recommendation of the President is required to introduce an amendment Bill, and since the 24th Amendment (1971) the President is bound to give assent once it is passed.
• For the federal subjects listed in the proviso to Article 368(2), ratification by the legislatures of not less than one-half of the States is needed before the Bill goes for assent.

• Carrying the joint-sitting rule over from ordinary Bills to amendment Bills — Article 108 does not reach Article 368.
• Assuming the President's prior sanction is needed to introduce an amendment Bill; that requirement belongs to Money Bills and to Bills under Articles 3 and 117.
• Confusing a State Legislature's power to ratify certain amendments with a power to initiate one. It has the first and not the second.

Usually as a not-correct statement item on the Article 368 procedure, or as a direct question on who may initiate an amendment and what majority is needed.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  A Bill to amend the Constitution of India may be introduced in

  • (a)the Lok Sabha only
  • (b)the Rajya Sabha only
  • (c)either House of Parliament
  • (d)either House of Parliament or a State Legislative Assembly

  Answer(c) either House of Parliament — Article 368(2) allows an amendment to be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill in either House of Parliament.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Which one of the following amendments to the Constitution of India requires ratification by the legislatures of not less than one-half of the States?

  • (a)Creation of a new State by altering the boundaries of an existing State
  • (b)A change in the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States
  • (c)Abolition of a State Legislative Council
  • (d)Admission of a new State into the Union

  Answer(b) A change in the distribution of legislative powers — this falls in the proviso to Article 368(2). The other three are made by ordinary law under Articles 3, 4 and 169 and need only a simple majority.